In a state that continues getting more congested and polluted, moving a stapler or a stereo from China to a living room in Bakersfield has gotten increasingly more difficult and expensive.

So much so that state policymakers are wrestling with the multibillion-dollar question of how to improve the movement of goods from the state’s ports to retail centers without increasing air pollution or making traffic worse for already-besieged commuters.

At stake is billions of dollars in international trade and hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fast-growing logistics industry. And experts say if the state isn’t able to expand its infrastructure fast enough, California risks losing its reputation as the nation’s gateway to international trade.

“Unless we find a more efficient and cleaner way of , we’re not going to be able to handle all that cargo,” said Bill Allen, CEO of the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

“And it would be a shame if we can’t handle the cargo, because hundreds of thousands of people’s jobs in Southern California depend on our ability to handle the increasing cargo flows from Asia.”

How to handle that growth has become increasingly controversial as business interests worry about Democratic proposals that would put new costs on the private sector, while Democrats fret that business interests downplay the need to contain air pollution.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger earlier this year proposed a

$15 billion “Goods Movement Action Plan” with about 200 projects to improve goods movement in California. That list was chosen out of $47 billion in potential projects that have been identified statewide.

“California’s economy moves in its trucks, in its trains, through its airports, and through its seaports,” said Richard Nordahl, chief of the goods movement office in Caltrans.

“So in order for the California economy to operate successfully and provide the benefits people expect, the freight movement system has to be improved, both in terms of its capacity, its operational efficiency and to minimize its impact on the environment.”

Among some of the recommended projects in the governor’s plan are operational changes like spreading out the time for vessel sailings and arrivals; expanding the labor force at the ports; and using ships rather than rail and trucks to transport goods between Southern and Northern California.

Infrastructure projects include grade separations along the Alameda Corridor so that trains and passenger vehicles do not have to slow down at crossings; wider freeways to the Mexican border; and new truck-only lanes on major trade corridors.

The plan also involves homeland security upgrades, such as the use of new technology for data management and new sensors for hazardous materials; and prescreening high-risk containers at departure points.

Another major element includes mitigating air quality and community impacts by steps such as putting new standards for clean fuels on trucks, ships and trains; reducing idling time and requiring ships to use electric power while idling; and reducing discharges of marine debris.

The program is slowly moving forward, though the state has only secured a fraction of the necessary funding so far.

State officials say part of the plan will be paid for through the $20 billion transportation bond approved by voters last year, which included about $2 billion for goods movement and another $1 billion for air quality improvements.

The biggest challenge will be finding additional sources for goods movement improvements, through a series of state government funds, public-private partnerships and contributions from local and federal agencies.

The Legislature is currently debating a new fee on imports and exports, though it is drawing the ire of the business community as a “job killer” that will hurt the state’s economy.

The proposal by Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, would help pay for infrastructure improvements through a $30 fee on every container that moves through the ports. It could bring in an estimated $500 million a year now and, with growth, up to $1.5 billion by 2020.

Lowenthal says the money would be spent in the regions in which it was collected, with the money evenly divided between air quality and infrastructure projects.

A study found that only a minimal amount of shipping might be diverted from California’s ports if the fee were imposed.

“We are embarking on a system now that’s held together by chewing gum, and that’s quadrupled in growth in the last 10 years without any major investment,” Lowenthal said. “It’s time to fix this or else we’re going to lose out as one of the world’s economic players.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar proposal by Lowenthal last year, saying the measure was flawed in its lack of accountability and failure to coordinate with other public and private sources of financing.

He hasn’t taken a position on the new bill.

Business interests remain opposed to Lowenthal’s container fee plan, fearing that it will increase costs and complaining that it doesn’t leave enough room for the business community to have input into which projects are funded.

The California Chamber of Commerce has placed the bill on its “job-killer” list of bills that are most harmful to California businesses.

“It’s a tax on imports and exports through all of California’s ports,” said CalChamber spokesman Vince Sollitto. “That harms people who are exporting goods and importing goods and all of the businesses that rely on those businesses, including California farmers.”

Roughly $436 billion in economic activity in California is associated with international trade, or about a quarter of the state’s GDP, according to the administration.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle roughly

43 percent of the nation’s imports. Together they make up the world’s fifth-largest port complex, handling about

$300 billion worth of goods in 14 million containers every year.

More than 16,000 trucks travel through the Los Angeles port alone every day, clogging up freeways such as the Long Beach (710) Freeway.

But the volume of goods moving through the ports has steadily increased over the years, and some analysts have predicted that if the ports do not increase their capacity soon, they could hit their limit as early as 2010.

Port of Los Angeles spokeswoman Theresa Adams Lopez said the facility has been planning improvements to its terminals and rail facilities, all while looking to reduce the amount of pollutants spewed into the air, and the impacts on neighboring communities.

Potential projects include replacement of the Gerald Desmond Bridge, to allow larger ships to pass, adding rail loading facilities to a terminal, and building new terminals.

At the same time, the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports last year created a joint plan to reduce emissions by 45 percent in five years, while still allowing growth in business.

One controversial proposal calls for requiring that all trucks coming into the ports meet the latest in federal environmental standards, a plan that would require replacement of many trucks, drawing opposition from the trucking industry.

Another proposal will require ships to run on electric power when docked, to reduce diesel emissions.

At the same time, some policymakers are looking at ways to take the pressure off the ports by moving some of their operations inland.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.